JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

48 science minds misuse the term “scientist” – namecalling is not science

A group of people calling themselves “leading scientists” think that what the climate really needs is some A-grade namecalling. Specifically, they want the word skeptic for themselves, and want everyone who is unconvinced by their argument to be called a “denier”. I guess they’ve finally realized how uncool it sounds to be an unskeptical scientist. Their reasoning is that they have 48 sciencey type celebrities and they can quote Carl Sagan.  Their scientific greats include guys like Bill Nye the Science Guy, James Randi, and Dick Smith.

The headline reads:

End misuse of ‘sceptic’, urge 48 science minds

Me, I think –  let’s aim higher, and end the misuse of of the term “scientist”. Real scientists debate the evidence and don’t use namecalling as scientific argument. Denier” is not a scientific term, it’s a form of character assassination from lazy minds who want to avoid discussing the data.

Make no mistake, “denier” is not a descriptive term in a science debate, it’s equal to saying “you have the brain of a rock”. Being in denial of observations to the point where a person in toto becomes labeled a denier, is shorthand for saying that they are so mentally deficient that a conversation is not worth having. Why start? It’s the oldest rhetorical trick in the book — a stone-age political ploy.

Then there’s the point about scientists using accurate English and defined terms.  What, specifically, is a climate denier — someone who denies we have a climate? Is that homo sapiens denialist,  or is it just someone who denies your political ideology? Could it be an all-purpose, sloppy misuse of English for advertising and promotion purposes? Looks like.

Real scientists would never talk of a consensus of opinions as if it were scientific evidence about the climate, nor would they use an ad hominem argument. Resorting to kindergarten namecalling shows that these “minds” are afraid, quaking, that the public might listen to skeptical scientists and judge their arguments for their content.

In a scientific debate, a “denier” must deny an observation. Yet the namecallers cannot name any observations that skeptical scientists deny. (I’ve been asking for nearly five years). Nor can they provide observational evidence to back up their “extraordinary claims”.

As they point out:

“Real skepticism is summed up by a quote popularised by Carl Sagan, ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

So who is making the extraordinary claim: Skeptical scientists say “climate models are exaggerating”. Unskeptical scientists say that building windmills in Hokum Downs will prevent floods in Taiwan. Where is the evidence?

Skeptical scientists ask for evidence. Unskeptical scientists call people “deniers”.

It’s a form of psychological projection. The unskeptical scientists are the ones who deny results from 28 million radiosondes and 35 years of satellite measurements. Unskeptical scientist deny that 98% of climate models did not predict the global pause in surface temperatures. But if you like namecalling, you can study it at the University of Queensland, and learn to be a certified tosser.

For the record (and for the 27th time). Where are the observations that show:

  1. Climate models assumptions on water vapor feedback are correct and apply to increases in CO2? Water vapor feedback is the most powerful feedback in climate models (See figure 9.44 of AR4) Fully 28 million weather balloons show the assumptions don’t fit the observations. The IPCC says : ” The cause of this bias remains elusive.” Sure.
  2. That there is one climate model that can predict the climate . Computer simulations of the climate not only fail on global scales1, but they can’t predict regional2, local3, short term, continental, or polar effects4 either. They are also wrong about humidity5, rainfall6a,6b,6c, drought7 and clouds8, as well as the all-important upper tropospheric patterns too.9, 10 Sure they can point to a model that predicts something correctly, but that model fails on lots of other points — show us a single model that understands The Climate.
  3. That the missing heat is conclusively found in the oceans. The best data we have is the ARGO network — where each thermometer measures nearly a quarter of a million cubic kilometers of water. No scientist would ever accept that measurement as valid to one hundredth of a degree even for a swimming pool. Kidding, right?

More mysteries for “science minds” to explain:  the world warmed just as fast in the 1870s as it did in the 1980s without all the CO2 (see the graph). Why are some people 95% certain that CO2 caused the latter, when they don’t know what caused the former? They also don’t know why the world started cooling 700 years ago, and started warming 300 years ago, long before our emissions increased.

“End misuse of ‘sceptic’, urge 48 science minds

A group of leading scientists and science journalists/commuicators – including Nobel winner Harold Kroto, Australian activist Dick Smith and ‘science guy’ Bill Nye - have called on the media abandon the use of the word ‘sceptic’ when describing views of climate science, saying in most cases the term ‘denier’ is more appropriate.”

“Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics.” –The Australian

In lieu of a scientific debate, the term “denier” — as applied en masse to thousands of people, is never appropriate.

Whats the opposite of skeptical?

Gullible.

REFERENCES

1 Hans von Storch, Armineh Barkhordarian, Klaus Hasselmann and Eduardo Zorita (2013)  Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming? Academia

2 Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and N. Mamassis, (2010). A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55: 7, 1094 — 1110 [PDF]

3 Koutsoyiannis, D., Efstratiadis, A., Mamassis, N. & Christofides, A.(2008) On the credibility of  climate predictions. Hydrol. Sci. J. 53(4), 671–684. changes [PDF]

4 Previdi, M. and Polvani, L. M. (2014), Climate system response to stratospheric ozone depletion and recovery. Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc.. doi: 10.1002/qj.2330

5 Paltridge, G., Arking, A., Pook, M., 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-35). [PDF]

6a Christopher M. Taylor, Richard A. M. de Jeu, Françoise Guichard, Phil P. Harris & Wouter A. Dorigo ‘Afternoon rain more likely over drier soils’ will be published in Nature on 12 September 2012. www.nature.com DOI 10.1038/nature11377

6b Makarieva, A. M., Gorshkov, V. G., Sheil, D., Nobre, A. D., and Li, B.-L.: Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 1039-1056, doi:10.5194/acp-13-1039-2013, 2013. [Abstract] [Final Revised Paper PDF]

6c  R.K. Tiwari1,* and Rekapalli Rajesh2 (2014)  Imprint of long-term solar signal in groundwater recharge fluctuation rates from North West China. Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2014GL060204

7 Sheffield, Wood & Roderick (2012) Little change in global drought over the past 60 years, Letter Nature, vol 491, 437

8 Miller, M., Ghate, V., Zahn, R., (2012) The Radiation Budget of the West African Sahel 1 and its Controls: A Perspective from 2 Observations and Global Climate Models. in press Journal of Climate [abstract] [PDF]

9 Christy J.R., Herman, B., Pielke, Sr., R, 3, Klotzbach, P., McNide, R.T., Hnilo J.J., Spencer R.W., Chase, T. and Douglass, D: (2010) What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? Remote Sensing 2010, 2, 2148-2169; doi:10.3390/rs2092148 [PDF]

10 Fu, Q, Manabe, S., and Johanson, C. (2011) On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models vs observations, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101, 2011 [PDF] [Discussion]

h/t Willie :- )

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (104 votes cast)
48 science minds misuse the term "scientist" - namecalling is not science, 9.0 out of 10 based on 104 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ms9dzft

198 comments to 48 science minds misuse the term “scientist” – namecalling is not science

  • #
    oeman50

    They have tried to make CAGW into a binary; you either agree with all of it and the coping strategies, or you are “anti-science,” no middle ground or nuances. Real science does not work that way.

    571

    • #
      Winston

      They have tried to make CAGW into a binary

      And then the alarmists complain that the debate is polarised. There’s no pleasing some people.

      271

    • #
      aussieguy

      Real science does not work that way.

      Because it isn’t real science! The premise of Climate Change is Left-wing oriented activism. Its always been about activism! This is why they have this “either you support me or are against me” attitude. It is why they name-call their opposition! It is why they CANNOT conduct an honest debate! (The EXACT same behaviour you will encounter with modern Feminists, Socialist Alliance/Alternative folks, and Social Justice Wankers Warriors, etc.)

      The entire Climate Change Movement gambled on the notion that people were stupid. (That’s how the Left thinks of EVERYONE that doesn’t think like they do). The gamble didn’t pay off as some of us actually do science, engineering, etc and are well-practised in our fields on a real world setting. Their movement has lost. They have lost public support. They are losing credibility. They are desperately trying anything and everything. Literally throwing any $hit against the wall and hoping something, ANYTHING sticks!

      Seriously, look at the bloody list of “science minds”. NOT a single one specialises in Climate.


      I personally became suspicious when one of my fav aerospace engineers in the modern world, Burt Rutan, analysed all the Climate data and called BS on the Movement back in 2011.

      This led me to become curious…What pushed me into skepticism was quotes like these:

      “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

      “A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.”

      “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

      “Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible.”

      “We reject the idea of private property.”

      “I think if we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically,”

      “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”

      The problem with most people is we dismiss others who make the above quotes. That’s how those loonies become powerful and end up leeching off the hard working taxpayer. ie: People ignore those who say crap because its so crazy; then they are surprised that these folks really are that crazy and need to be stopped!

      Redefining language tells us they have lost, and they need to reframe and redefine in order to regain a position of advantage. They won’t stop because their whole livelyhood depends on this! Remember, activists don’t produce of anything of tangible value to society, as they spend all their time protesting and politicising everything. So they must con others or leech off the taxpayer.

      342

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Whilst skeptics are busy fighting one battle to ditch the denier demonym it is very unhelpful of you to be simultaneously provoking a war on a different front that props up the popular belief that “climate deniers” are paranoid fantasists, which you do with the above vague allusion to communist agents being significant in modern day global warming policy.
        Some referenced sources and context would help in determining whether the above quotes substantiate your argument, but you provide none.
        Anyhow, I’ve heard most of these quotes and can place them from memory, but this next one was a newie:

        Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible.

        Although that doesn’t predate the earliest concerns about global warming from CO2, it does predate the modern (IPCC 1988-present) global warming debate by nearly 20 years. The source of your quote turns out to be Gus Hall, the National Chairman of the Communist Party of America in 1972, as reported by Holly Swanson. The Marxists actually didn’t think very highly of Gus Hall because he advocated a peaceful path of reform to achieve Communism, whereas the hardcore Marxists believed their only solution was the destruction of capitalism. So according to Marxists, the above quote is from a moderate!
        Of course it doesn’t matter where the quote is from, it’s still a furphy, as is your entire line of thinking.

        We should do the right thing for the right reasons. Statements about people’s political motivations tell us absolutely nothing about how the climate operates.

        Burt Rutan, analysed all the Climate data and called BS on the Movement back in 2011.

        I was similarly impressed… until I found Burt got suckered by Heritage Foundation propaganda. In his Powerpoint presentation “An Engineer’s Critique of Global Warming ‘Science’” version 4.3 he copies a Heritage.org infographic as though it were primary source material. On page 12 this graphic explicitly states “3.4% of CO2 is caused by human activity”, which is next to a block diagram showing the greenhouse component of today’s atmospheric gas concentration. Unfortunately this is false. The 3.4% figure probably originates in the widely published belief that nearly 97% of CO2 annual fluxes are of natural origin. Somebody at Heritage didn’t appreciate the difference between a flux, a net flux, and a volumetric mixing ratio. The mixing ratios of GHGs and CO2 are just as indicated in the diagram. But the “3.4%” refers to total CO2 fluxes over a year, not mix ratio at a point in time.
        The carbon flux out of the biosphere each year is indeed enormous, but 6 months later it is more than offset by a similarly sized flux into the biosphere and ocean from the atmosphere, with the resulting net flux being a net movement out of the atmosphere into the biosphere and ocean.
        Because carbon of any origin occupies space in a carbon repository that carbon from any other origin cannot, the relative amounts of repository net fluxes and resulting atmospheric increase are more relevant to judging the cause of the CO2 rise, but the origin of any individual CO2 molecule is not relevant. Through a separate argument we already know as fact that nature has been a net sink for CO2 from the atmosphere for nearly 50 years, leaving industry as the only source.
        Based on ice cores, only 20ppm rise was due to the temperature rise that occurred. The percentage of all CO2 in the air that is there due to industrial activity is much closer to 25% of CO2 than 3.4%.
        It’s a shame Burt didn’t check his source, as this mistake is similar to the one that triggered Glaciergate.

        Aside from that, yes, Rutan had a very power-packed slide set which is quite concise despite being 98 pages long. I was so impressed I cited it in my 2011 submission to the Clean Energy Future parliamentary inquiry, urging them to abandon the carbon pricing and wait until another 30 years of empirical climate research had been done.

        03

    • #
      Mark D.

      Real science does not work that way.

      Absolutely right.

      What does work that way are propaganda techniques.

      91

    • #
      mike restin

      I agree.
      If what the IPCC is selling is real it would have been easy.

      Based on climategate alone (when the boys were caught being boys) they should have thrown the whole team under the nearest bus.

      If they demonstrated transparency and fully explained why the world is in trouble and how their solutions were the only answer, there’d be little to argue about.

      That’s not exactly how it went though.

      41

  • #
    Colin

    I just love being called a “denier”. When I ask what specifically am I denying I usually get a blank stare or a vaugue reference to 97% of scientists. I then ask 97% of what? 10, 100, 500, 1000? Again the blank stare. I know – as mentioned above – that once the name calling starts that I have hit a nerve and that they have nothing to fall back except name calling.

    621

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      The 97% thing is a bit complex. One study was a survey of people and another study examined abstracts of articles. The latter one is known to be garbage. The survey of people asked 2 questions of the sort “Does Earth’s climate change?” – and “Do human activities have any impact?” Note, I am paraphrasing, but you can look them up.
      Most folks that know some of Earth’s past and follow the current literature will answer “yes” to both questions. I’m somewhat surprised that those in agreement did not reach “99 and 44/100 percent.” [Ivory Soap slogan for that %.]
      In case you wonder about me, my wife and I are early signers of the Oregon Petition Project.
      http://www.petitionproject.org/

      281

      • #
        Klem

        Exactly, the questions were so broad it would have been difficult to disagree, I have always wondered just who were those 3% who disagreed?

        I would not be surprised if there was no 3%, that they were simply fabricated because a full 100% would have undermined the credibility of the study.

        I still don’t buy the 3% disagreed thing. I’ll bet no one disagreed.

        221

        • #
          edwina

          I am reminded of a toothpaste advertisement that stated “9 out of 10 dentists recommend XYZ toothpaste.” Probably only 10 dentists were asked/paid to affirm the declaration. Then there are some who use the argument that if 97% of doctors said you needed a life saving operation would you disagree with so many? Well, maybe not. On the other hand if 3% of pilots or air engineers said the plane you were about to board was flawed would you go on? I wouldn’t.

          142

          • #
            ian hilliar

            Well, looking at the list of “scientists” it would seem most of these toothpaste salesmen are actually members of Psychology departments. How in hell can a psychologist masquerade as a scientist?

            91

        • #

          That 3% would be me.
          I can confidently state that “climate” doesn’t change during any meaningful time frame for humans.

          80 generations ago Jesus was walking around. The deserts then are still deserts now. The Mediterranean climates then are Mediterranean climates now. Rainforests then are still rainforests now etc etc.

          Is there anybody who can point to a “climate” from 5, 10 or 20 generations ago that’s changed?

          The whole CAGW scam is about an increase in temperature, thus far no more than 0.5-0.8DegC in over 150 years (6 generations at 25yrs per) NOT A SINGLE CLIMATE ZONE HAS CHANGED IN THAT TIME.

          Sceptics need to stop playing this game on the alarmists turf by the alarmists rules.

          CLIMATE DOES NOT AND CAN NOT CHANGE WITHIN MEANINGFUL HUMAN LIFETIMES.

          I am the 3%

          312

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Klem:
          they had a very general on-line survey with over 3000 responses, mostly favourable. They whittled (and whittled) this down to 79 selected people, most of whom knew each other.
          They asked them
          Has the world warmed since 1850? 77 said yes, 2 didn’t answer.
          Was man the predominate cause? 75 said yes, 2 said no, 2 didn’t answer.

          So 75 out of 77 gave them the answer they set out to get. That’s why they avoided asking people who might not give the “right” answer.
          Personally, I think of the survey as 75 out of 3026, or 2.5% believe in AGW.

          61

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Oops, see Gai 2.1.3 for the correct figure.

            75 out of 3146 or 2.4% of scientists agree that AGW is real. It is worse that I thought.

            21

      • #
        Matty

        I agree with 3% of it. Now what was the question ?

        101

        • #
          warcroft

          “I haven’t seen what the PM said, but I support what she said.”
          “But you dont know what that is?”
          “I’m sure she’s right.”

          52

      • #
        gai

        Anthony Watts blog discusses the first (people) 97% at length.

        About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…

        What else did the ‘97% of scientists’ say? is hilarious.

        The survey was sent to 10,257 earth scientists asking two questions. 3,146 returned the survey.

        The questions were:

        1. When compared with pre-­ 1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

        2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

        82% of the 3,146 answered “yes” to the second question which I find rather misleading. what does “significant”? mean? What does “changing” mean? — cooling or warming or both…

        But 82% wasn’t good enough for propaganda purposes so they chose 77 ‘Climate Scientists’ out of the 3,146 — those had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals — Out of those 77, 75 answered yes to the second question.

        Cherry pick anyone?

        231

        • #
          John F. Hultquist

          there is a missing 1
          800s should be 1800s
          [Thank you John, assuming that is what Gai intended, I have updated it] -Fly

          31

        • #
          Barry Woods

          Hi gai

          glad you liked the second one.. SkS it seemed particularly disliked that one, probably because I went to the actual source of the survey, and found lots of very sceptical feedback from the scientists that participated in the survey….

          Also did you see this from the coauthor – M Zimmermann (in the survey paper itself) unlike Cook et al, she seemed to have learned something.
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/#comment-1047461

          “This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I’m actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc.”

          82

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Good comment John,

        With respect to the question :“Do human activities have any impact?” I suspect that intuitively those without scientific training would

        interpret that with a very logical approach based on the idea that we heat stuff up to produce electricity and manufacture stuff so it is

        obvious; we do affect the climate.

        The fact that “the climate” being discussed is really the local climate characterized by the Urban Heat Island Effect is left out of consideration.

        The fact is that if all urban heat islands on the planet were put together they could be placed within the borders of Spain!

        The rest of the planet’s land and oceans are therefore non urban heat island zones.

        Sense of proportion is missing in the questions and as you imply, they are extremely vague and unscientific.

        KK

        81

      • #

        John,
        I went to hear John Cook speak about the abstracts survey at Bristol University in mid-September. In response to questions Cook admitted
        - that the selected papers were not all on climate science, nor even in the area of science.
        - that “support” was for the most banal form of global warming. Jo Nova is part of the 97%, as she has stated that on its own a doubling of CO2 will cause about 1.1 C of warming.
        In the lecture John Cook also mentioned the Oregon Petition that you and 31,486 others signed. He calls all the signatories “fake experts” because they are “scientists”, but not “climate scientists”. This directly contradicts the consensus study criteria. It also completely undermines the massive effort to get various scientific and professional bodies to issue proclamations in support of “climate change”. By implication, organisations such as The Royal Society are also “fake experts”.

        151

        • #
          Winston

          By implication, organisations such as The Royal Society are also “fake experts”.

          Well, now there’s something we can all agree on.

          81

    • #
      el gordo

      At this late stage of the game the brainwashed masses become quite hostile if you raise the possibility that CO2 is benign and has no impact on temperatures. So I tell them straight, global cooling is about to begin and ‘earthians’ are totally unprepared.

      At first they assume you are taking the piss, but soon realise that you are just mad.

      Personally I’m proud to be a member of the Denialati, in my mind the science is settled.

      201

    • #
      Dariusz

      I also say to them: how often you do experience a rare event like coming across an extremely small minority of climate deniers.
      The bad news is that statistically the rare events don,t occur in a row… so forget playing lotto for a while

      11

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    The 48 obviously believe that science is some sort of lock-step activity, that those who disagree with them in any way must be partitioned off, sent to Coventry. All right, let the 48 goose-step their way to ignominy along with Lysenko. They are clearly acting not as scientists, but as propagandists. How low can they sink?

    301

    • #
      mike restin

      I really wish you wouldn’t that.

      “They are clearly acting not as scientists, but as propagandists. How low can they sink?”

      You know they take that as a challenge.

      They always seem to prove there’s at least one more level.

      31

  • #
    o2bnaz2

    Skeptical scientists ask for evidence. Unskeptical scientists call people “deniers”.
    Denier is a form of pejorative hate used against a group in the same way and by the same caliber of people who called my father a ni**er lover for his relationship with my mother. His love didn’t change because of a hate label given to him by haters as the minds of skeptical scientists won’t change by being called a denier. My father understood that the label was meant as a deterrent to the fellow haters, not really aimed at him; If you dare to love a black woman you too will be called a ni**er lover, so don’t risk it! The label denier is meant to prevent people from asking questions, challenging the current power structure and considering inappropriate ideas. It is hate meant to keep the non-skeptical fearful, and in line. Allowing us to be called skeptics requires them to think of us as people.

    182

  • #
    DMA

    Here are two examples of “Deniers” at work according to this witless group of 48. http://junkscience.com/2014/12/10/ross-mckitrick-to-epa-climate-models-over-predict-and-represent-temperatures-wrong/

    http://junkscience.com/2014/12/10/john-christy-to-epa-co2-not-having-any-temperature-impact-where-models-predict/

    Can any of them DENY with evidence the validity of these two scientific statements.

    151

  • #
    Pouncer

    Let’s set up tiers:

    1) I deny that the average global temperature can be determined at all in any meaningful fashion.

    2) I deny that the global temperatures, as or however determined, are at record high levels.

    3) I deny that the temperatures, although at or matching previous record levels, are now rising or are likely to rise in the near future.

    4) I deny that rising temperatures can be attributed solely to human activity.

    5) I deny that increasing levels of Carbon Dioxide are the primary human activity contributing to rising temperatures, compared to urbanization, deforestation, desertification, and other environmental degradations.

    6) I deny that civilization’s power sources, dependent on fossil fuels and emission of CO2, can be replaced with non-fossil fuel sources fast enough to affect global average temperatures.

    7) I deny that the costs of warming-related effects are correctly calculated, specifically I deny that the benefits of warming are not included in the calculations related to overall warming effects.

    8) I deny that the economic costs of replacing fossil fuels have been correctly calcuated or that costs of other power sources will be less that even the one-sided costs of rising temperatures or other warming-related effects (rising sea level, for example.)

    9) I deny that replacing “business-as-usual” (free market cost estimation and resource allocation among competing uses) with trans-national authoritarianism (“expert” decision-making treaties, taxes, rationing, and subsidies to favored industries, nations, or markets) will be the least-costly way of addressing the costs, if any, of warming and energy-source transitions.

    10) I deny that “science” or “physics” is exempt from criticism; and I specifically deny that the practitioners of scientific disciplines have never committed fraud, never deluded themselves, never over-reached their own competence, never allowed their political or religious biases to affect their scientific judgement, never ignored inconvenient data in order to tell a simpler more plausible story, and never spliced two incompatible bits of evidence together to create a “missing link” or “compelling scenario” necessary to sway public opinion.

    11) I deny that even the most scrupulously honest and careful scientists can meaningfully apply the concept of “ceteris paribis” to holistic biological homeostatic systems and determine future (and typically linear trends) based on past measurements and assuming that only one factor in their analysis will ever vary.

    12) I deny that nations can usefully make war upon other nations for violating treaties; I deny that in the absence of wars and the threats of war that treaties will be implemented as agreed; and I deny that any treaty-like arrangement among nation states then will have any meaningful effect upon any measured trend in any scientific field whatsoever.

    I personally am a 12 out of 12 denier. You?

    151

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    Carl Sagan, a consummate self-publicist, made the four critical Physics’ mistakes that have led to the present-day Climate Alchemy debacle.

    1. He confused a ‘Radiant Emittance’ with a real energy flux, hence endorsed the imaginary Arrhenius Enhanced GHE based on imaginary ‘back radiation’.

    2. He thought that the resultant ‘black body’ surface IR plus thermal runaway creates Lapse rate warming of a planetary atmosphere, when it’s gravity and surface pressure.

    3. The ‘black body’ surface IR claim, which Sir John Houghton, co-founder of the IPCC shows is impossible in Figure 2.5 of ‘Physics of Atmospheres’, 1977 edition, is a basic boundary condition error, hence the crap climate calculations.

    4. His aerosol optical physics, introduced to Climate Alchemy in 1974 by Lacis and Hansen incorrectly claims that as mean cloud droplet diameter falls and cloud optical depth increases, the hemispherical albedo of a non-absorbing cloud asymptotes to unity. This is nonsense; his acolytes claim it’s because diffuse light returns to its source when hemispherical albedo for diffuse Mie scattering asymptotes at 0.5. The real answer is that he misunderstood van de Hulst’s work. There are two optical processes, the second being from large droplets which takes over when droplets reach rainfall size.

    These scientific failures were highlighted in the 1960s by a Russian physicist but it was the Cold War. Blame Sagan for present day Klimate Kookery – the poor darlings were taught fake fizzicks.

    171

  • #
    Pouncer

    “Whats the opposite of skeptical? ”

    Well, not “Gullible”, I think.

    I’d suggest “proselytistic”.

    A gullible person accepts what he is told.

    A skeptic questions what he is told.

    A denier rebuts what he is told.

    But a proselytizer echoes what he has been told —- loudly, widely, fervently, unquestioningly and zealously.

    Al Gore is not gullible. Al Gore preaches a hell-fire homily based on the scriptures he has received and embraced. Everybody can point to such an advocate in their own polity.

    Somewhere in the mix are heretics, apostates, heathens, and pagans, but I’m far from sure anyone here wants the full breakdown…

    161

    • #
      Ken Stewart

      You left out “backsliders”- a religious term for those who used to be strong believers but became less so, to the point of being believers in name only. This increasingly applies to a large proportion of the public, which is why the proselytizers have upped the rhetoric.

      91

    • #
      Ron Cook

      Pouncer

      Surely one needs to be gullible “accepting what he is told” before he becomes a proselytizer “echoing what he has been told —- loudly, widely, fervently, unquestioningly and zealously”. This is the course of any ‘cult religion’.

      As Mr Gore he has monetory interests in proclaiming the CAGW religion.

      R-COO- K+

      51

  • #
    Yonniestone

    After seeing the movie ‘The book thief’ you get a real sense of the underlying fear and mistrust people had within the German population in WW2, this fear was generated by social engineering it’s also a bit ironic considering the current misuse of ‘Denier’.

    81

  • #
    Robert O

    The AGW hypothesis has brought a couple of unscientific concepts into the political debate: consensus, the 97%, and the precautionary principle. I don’t know which is worse, but I got a reply from the Federal member for Wentworth suggesting they better do something about this global warming thing in case the critics were wrong and they still could.

    111

  • #
    Pathway

    The word denier is used to associate anyone who disagrees with the authority of the warmers with the NAZIS. I do not deny the holocaust, as it was done by the National German Socialist Workers Party and led to the deaths of 20 million human beings.

    31

  • #

    These chaps should consult a dictionary rather than defining words to suit their own ends. When looking at the John Cook / Michael Mann definition of “skeptic” I checked my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. The definitions are

    Definition 1 pertains to a school of philosophy after the Greek Pyrrho, which doubts the possibility of knowledge of any kind.

    Definition 2 is someone who doubts the validity of knowledge claims in a particular area of inquiry. This includes, but is not confined to the natural sciences.

    Definition 2.1 “one who maintains a doubting attitude with reference to a particular question or statement“. The OED has this as the popular definition.

    Definition 3 is one who doubts the truth of Christianity. An older definition, not applicable here.

    Definition 4 is one who is seeking the truth. That is “an inquirer who has not arrived at definite convictions“. This is only occasionally used, at least in the late 20th century.

    It is Definition 2 that can covers a whole range of climate skepticism. I would claim that climate science says nothing novel about the real world, as every single short-term prediction that cannot be obtained from extrapolating existing trends has been wrong. If they had made any correct prediction you can be sure this would feature prominently in the PR.

    You can cross-check this. I used an online dictionary when looking at William Connolley’s definition of “skeptic”.

    61

    • #
      Ken Stewart

      Surely definition 4 would be the preferred position of all scientists? Or not?

      31

      • #
        C.J.Richards

        Not at all Ken. Isn’t there is a tendency for expert opinion to appear quite self assured and convinced, both before and after it changes.
        Displaying uncertainty isn’t appreciated by the client community.
        Right is whatever it’s believed to be at the time ;-)

        31

      • #
        C.J.Richards

        My own opinion though, is everything we know is but a working assumption, until we know better.
        That’s not a popular thing to admit though.

        21

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          That depends. Admitting some uncertainty is one way of getting extra funding. Not that I stoop to such tricks, of course.

          11

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Definition 4, is the one that seems to be most closely aligned to my concept of self, although I am not yet certain.

        41

      • #
        NielsZoo

        #4 has my vote as well. In real science you only need to be proven wrong once thus the door should always remain open to new proofs whenever (and however) they may show up. To paraphrase Hawking amending Einstein; God not only plays dice with the Universe, he throws them where they can’t be seen.

        31

      • #
        gai

        Yes number 4 is the preferred position. Note that it is ” only occasionally used, at least in the late 20th century.” so the idea “one who is seeking the truth” is now passé in late 20th century culture.

        This is not good since Marxism denies that reality (a concrete truth) exists.

        The Philosophy Of Karl Marx

        The philosophical bases of Marx’s thought were laid early and remained unchanged throughout his life. As a student, Marx accepted the philosophy of Hegel as the only sound and adequate explanation of the universe. According to this philosophy, “the only immutable thing is the abstraction of movement.” The one universal phenomenon is change, and the only universal form of this phenomenon is its complete abstraction. Thus, Hegel accepted as real only that which existed in the mind. Objective phenomena and events were of no consequence; only the conceptions of them possessed by human minds were real. Ideas, not objects, were the stuff of which the universe was made. The universe and all events therein existed and took place only in the mind, and any change was a change in ideas….

        In the Hegelian philosophy no idea could exist without an opposite…. If an idea were labeled a thesis, its opposite would be its antithesis… Struggle or conflict was the en-evitable fact in such a universe—conflict of the thesis with its antithesis. In this struggle thesis and antithesis acted and reacted on each other, and a new phenomenon—synthesis—was created. All action or change occurring in the universe was, under the Hegelian philosophy, the product of thesis, antithesis, and resulting synthesis—all in the realm of ideas, since objective reality could exist only in that sphere….

        From the point of view of the Marxists the struggle or conflict between thesis with its antithesis— Pro vs Anti CAGW — is complete and a synthesis AKA a ‘CONSENSUS’ has been reached.

        Unless you understand The Hegelian Basis of Marxist thought where physical reality is denied and only a conflict of IDEAS matters, you have no hope of winning the Propaganda War which is a conflict of IDEAS. Scientific data does not matter except as used as a weapon. Language is another weapon they use by redefining terms. Since they define the battleground we have no hope of winning as long as we continue to remain on THEIR battlefield.

        So let’s try to get ahead of them as they redefine the word Skeptic. They are not using the fourth definition which they have now rendered obsolete via Post-Modern Science.
        Their use of the word Skeptic refers to

        Definition 1 pertains to a school of philosophy after the Greek Pyrrho, which doubts the possibility of knowledge of any kind.

        Pyrrho was the founder of the Greek school of skepticism. From a quick look it seems there are at least two brands of skepticism. One is Academic Skepticism and “…recently there has been a renewed interest in Pyrrhonism…” This is from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy revised Thu Oct 28, 2010 – Stanford University.

        Stanford is the home of Leif Svalgaard who is ‘adjusting’ historic sunspot numbers to remove the Modern Grand Maximum and more important Paul R. Ehrlich. The Ehrlichs co-author with Obama’s science Czar, John Holdren, books calling for “deindustrialization” and for a transnational “Planetary Regime” [that] should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

        C-FACT also had an article:
        John Holdren in his own (radical) words

        A couple passages from the long Sanford article:

        …Even before examining the various general forms of skepticism, it is crucial that we distinguish between philosophical skepticism and ordinary incredulity because doing so will help to explain why philosophical skepticism is so intriguing. Consider an ordinary case in which we think someone fails to have knowledge….

        …what distinguishes Pyrrhonian Skepticism from Academic Skepticism is that the former does not deny that we can have knowledge of what I have called EI-type propositions. They also would not assent [agree] to the Epistemist’s claim that we can have such knowledge. Let us see how they arrived at that position.

        To deny something is merely to assent to its negation. Since the Pyrrhonians took assent, i.e., the pro-attitude required for knowledge, to involve a kind of certainty that the matter had been finally and fully resolved, they did not assent to what they took to be non-evident propositions….

        What we think of as ‘skepticism’ they call ‘ordinary incredulity’ What Stanford calls Pyrrhonian Skepticism seems to nicely aligned with Marxism.

        Jo, perhaps you or someone with a background in Philosophy can follow this thread and determine where they are going with this thought since the Pyrrhonian form of Skepticism seems just as bad as Marxism.

        31

        • #
          Lord Jim

          Jo, perhaps you or someone with a background in Philosophy can follow this thread and determine where they are going with this thought since the Pyrrhonian form of Skepticism seems just as bad as Marxism.

          Not that I would profess to any great learning in philosophy, however, I would distinguish Pyrrhonism and marxism by the fact that the former claims we cannot know anything at all (radical scepticism, not, I think, dissimilar to Descartes) while the latter claims that all knowledge is relative, determined by political or social position (both would be criticized as involving performative contradictions, however).

          10

  • #
    Joe V.

    What’s an honest scientist to do ?
    Apparently Ibn al-Haytham, credited with being the father of the scientific method in 10th. Century Iraq, had a similar problem .

    ” Ibn al-Haytham thought about resigning from the government office he was appointed to because of his love of pure learning. This was almost impossible, however, as resignation would have insulted the person who appointed him. He could not run away as this would bring dishonor to his family. According to Qaysar, Ibn al-Haytham pretended to be insane. …” He concludes, “Real or fake, Ibn al-Haytham’s mental breakdown allowed him to escape the drudgery of his government job.”

    http://www.fountainmagazine.com/Issue/detail/Ibn-al-Haytham-First-Scientist

    111

    • #
      NielsZoo

      I’m guessing that Ibn didn’t get UN paid passage on private tricked out Gulfstreams to climate conferences in exotic locals on a regular basis. Probably didn’t get a lavish salary for writing unsupported and unproven governmentese and a posh Manhattan apartment with a limo to commute to the office to go with it. That’s what makes current government drudgery so attractive… do less, make more and be unaccountable.

      71

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Considering that as we expand our understanding of “dark matter”, anti matter and quantum physics we are discovering that even gravity might not be what we thought it was, Id say there is still enough wriggle room in the “settled science” of climate to be validly regarded as a skeptic.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/05/whats-the-matter-with-gravity/

    Equally Id say given our understanding of mental health, there is enough room for this lot to be regarded as fruit loops. That’s my name calling done for the day.

    91

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … even gravity might not be what we thought it was …

      Gravity sucks.

      41

      • #
        NielsZoo

        Therefore Nature abhors gravity? Now I’m confused, ’cause I thought that CO2 was supposed to be what sucked, that’s what the Mann from the IPCC keeps telling us… right?

        11

  • #
    Barry Woods

    Hi Jo

    this will make you laugh, from Joe Romm recently about the same story:


    “I prefer “climate science denier” to “climate change denier” because many deniers say they accept that the climate is changing http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/10/3601948/scientists-media-skeptic-deniers/

    source:
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/10/3601948/scientists-media-skeptic-deniers/

    81

  • #
    mike restin

    I can see it now.
    Bill Nye sayin “Skeptical’s good.”
    “From now on we should be callin ourselves skeptical.”

    And Lew chimes in, “Yeah, and them other guys are wacko deniers.”
    (That’s a clinical term)

    51

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Well done Jo!

    This is an important post because it clearly outlines what is going on so that the general public can see more into the problem of the

    hijacking of science for political purposes.

    The celebrity scientists like Leonardo DiCaprio and our own dear Kate have as their sole driving force the expansion of their public image

    and adding that extra gloss provided by being associated with the deeply humanitarian cause of “saving the planet” and all who sail in her.

    The fact that the “debate” has been switched to a discussion of who is actually a sceptic just shows how ready the Warmers are to avoid the

    real issue at hand: Corrupt Science.

    Actually the issue of whether CO2 can cause any additional warming is an Engineering problem and as every metallurgist I am acquainted with

    will tell you it is a physical impossibility for CO2 to drive the global climate cycle.

    The many “scientists” with degrees in pure physics, pure chemistry and the like have no expertise in real modeling and if they did they

    would have done what the real scientists have had to do, namely, assemble ALL of the factors involved not just the insignificant man made

    component of atmospheric CO2. As I have mentioned many times previously, the real model starts with the 100,000 year cycle of freezing and

    recovery and the interglacial which , as we are soon likely to find, is only a very short fraction of that cycle. Even physics graduates

    should be aware of this orbital cycle, why are they so quiet?

    If pure science graduates had explored just one aspect of the problem they would have eliminated made made CO2 long ago through basic

    chemical process analysis.

    Why have none of these geniuses ever assessed the interface between the oceans and atmosphere for transfer of CO2?

    Why why why. Is it the 98% to 2% differential which may become public knowledge in the process or is it just ignorance of the fact that the

    oceans require and use CO2 to sustain the activity that is ongoing within.

    It’s a BIG problem ( bringing to light the true picture of so called CAGW) and is not going to be solved by politicians or celebrities with

    no appropriate scientific and engineering training, or SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE.

    KK

    111

    • #
      Ron Cook

      KK

      “……..because it clearly outlines what is going on so that the general public can see more into the problem of the hijacking of science for political purposes.”

      Problem is the general public are not being shown the real science only the fraudulent wrong science through MSM and adverts using celebrities who are not scientists.

      How do we get information in a post like this out to the general public? Be blowed if I know.

      R-COO- K+

      41

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Ron

        It’s very hard to get climate scientists to discuss any science.

        Emphasising this point and making the public aware that their prime stock in trade is abuse could pay dividends since it doesn’t actually involve any “confusing” science.

        ?

        KK

        21

  • #
    Lord Jim

    When someone wrongly asserts that something is the case, I deny their assertion.

    When ‘science’ fails to account for the facts, I deny it.

    If only I could find a ‘CAGW denier’ t-shirt.

    81

  • #

    It’s odd that we have a geophysical “science” which shows so little curiosity about the large and mostly hot, plasticky ball we inhabit. Not to mention the inaccessible wet bits. And massive changes which are so recent. How did Bass Strait fill up in such a short space of time? Why the fuss over the latest dribble of sea level rise (starting in the 1700s, but sssh) and none about previous rises and falls not that long ago? What about all those thermal vents around Thwaites, and the ash sheet, size of Wales, near PIG? Not even curious?

    I imagine that the deep hydrosphere and asthenosphere etc would be a bit hard to check out, but you’d think they’d be more curious. It’s like too much curiosity about what’s underneath us or beyond our atmosphere could prove a distraction from dinky modelling and white elephant breeding.

    The art of climate science seems to consist of knowing enough to spend and cost trillions, but not so much as actually know.

    101

  • #
    Peter C

    Forty eight sciences gullibles! The list includes; psychologistS, science writers and a film maker(Dick Smith).

    The term Climate Science Skeptic is well understood. I do not,think that they can change that. A label I wear with pride.

    Using ” Denier” makes the user look bad. Because they are Gullible. That label might stick because it is also deserved.

    It might help to keep repeating it: GULLIBLE! GULLIBLE!! GULLIBLE! GULLIBLE! GULLIBLE.
    :-)

    61

  • #
    Lord Jim

    Another question is: how many of the people on the list are actually properly qualified to pontificate about ‘the science’?

    How many have specific expertise in the field that allows them to form a proper judgment as to impending CAGW doom?

    I count a handful of physicists on that list (and Dick Smith? of the electronic store?!).

    Next problem: the field is not settled. So even if someone makes an assertion in their field of expertise it cannot form the basis of a valid argument from expert opinion.

    This article in the Australian is nothing more than a fallacious argument from authority. They should know better than to publish such things.

    71

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      The fact that they published their names in a list is a thing to understand.
      That they believe argument from authority makes them what? More authoritive? Correct? Who knows.

      I’d be surprised if any of them has done any digging into the Climate Science, yet they believe so strongly that what they’ve been told is true. I guess it’s because they themselves are subject to argument from authority, that they believed others who were supposedly authoritive.

      There is a conviction on display when people put their names to lists like this. This is true of any list, from the mundane parking meters in town, to world leaders telling us what we should think. It is something for us to recognise and ponder.

      61

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      It is difficult to determine from just titles, but I estimate that between three and eight of those on the list might have enough of a Maths and Physics background to have a valid opinion.

      I sincerely doubt that any of them understand how computer models actually work, or how prone they are to human error.

      31

  • #
  • #
    the Griss

    Let’s play it as they would.

    If the list given at the link “The headline reads:”

    I’m really struggling to find more than 1 or 2 of those 48 that could be classed as a “climate scientist”

    51

    • #
      Lord Jim

      I’m really struggling to find more than 1 or 2 of those 48 that could be classed as a “climate scientist”

      Indeed, so:

      Why are people who are not experts in the field of climate science telling other non-experts what to think about the science?

      21

  • #
    Peter Miller

    ‘Climate scientists’ have a real problem in believing in natural climate cycles and even those, who believe they may have happened, always insist they stopped circa 1950.

    The real deniers are those that deny the existence of natural climate cycles and/or that they are still occurring today.

    I am a scientist, and like all other scientists I know, believe that CAGW theory is a crock. But then none of us are employed by NGOs or government.

    71

  • #
    Neville

    We are currently at the cool end of the coolest IG in the last 400,000 years.
    Just look at the Greenland and Antarctic Holocene ice core graphs.
    The MacDonald et al study found that during the Hol climate optimum boreal forests grew up to the arctic coastline for thousands of years. Now there is just tundra and ice in those areas.
    And during the Eemian IG SLs were 5 to 8 metres higher and temps were much higher as well.
    We have just emerged from the LIA and the slight temp increase is not unusual or unprecedented at all.

    101

  • #
    gnome

    When they stop lying I will stop denying. Until then I m happy to be called a denier.

    Admit the MWP, admit CO2 is beneficial to plant growth at least up to a level three times current atmospheric levels, admit that a warmer world would be a wetter world, and admit there is no reliable large scale base-load storage system for electricity. Once they have admitted these four basics we can start to discuss sea levels, ocean “acidity”, peak oil, weather disruption etc. Before then, they are only propagandists, and any point they have to make isn’t worth addressing anyway.

    61

  • #
    handjive

    Is ‘stupid’ a name?

    ALISON FLEMING: My name’s Alison Fleming, and I’m from Canberra in Australia.

    DEENA GUZDER: And how has climate change affected Australia in particular?

    ALISON FLEMING: Climatic variation is really noticeable.
    Within one week, we can have snowstorms to bushfires, and in different parts of the country we’ll have flooding.
    So, farmers are finding that climatic decisions are very hard to know when to plant, how to plant.
    And this huge variation is just destroying whole crops for entire years.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2014/12/11/putting_people_before_profit_thousands_march

    61

    • #
      Lawrie Ayres

      Alison is from Canberra and she knows what farmers are worried about? Farmers are worried about the lousy returns for their produce and they are worried about the high costs of fuel, electricity and all inputs. They are worried about the duopoly of Woolworths and Coles and their power to keep producers poor. They are worried about the rotten Native Vegetation Laws that were introduced to meet Kyoto requirements and are still there because the State Coalition governments are gutless. There are indeed many worries for farmers but they are skilled enough to know that planting and harvest are based on experience and conditions and wise enough to know that the AGW/CC fraud is just that.

      111

      • #
        beowulf

        Hey Lawrie. I have noted your letters-to-the-editor battle with self-styled ‘climate scientist’ Don White in THE LAND (the farmers’ newspaper of NSW)and have been trying to support you in that effort. They only printed one of my letters out of 3 submitted, and that one only after mangling the text substantially, adding and subtracting bits at will, as is to be expected of a Fairfax rag. My best work went unprinted.
        The rural community is poorly served by the likes of White, who seems to be nothing more than an apologist for the BOM. His reply to your incisive questions where he called you the D word then himself proceeded to deny there was any pause and that the BOM adjusted any numbers at all, was a classic example of blinkered thinking.
        I don’t know how much he knows about the weather, but he knows diddly about climate. He seems to be indebted to the BOM for every detail of his one-sided knowledge. If I was still a cockey I wouldn’t take the slightest notice of his long range predictions.
        I have now stopped reading that paper for good after nearly 40 years.

        31

    • #
      Aaron M

      That was simply mind blowing! Surely they just get caught up in the carnivale atmosphere and what not, and simply spew whatever rolls around in their heads?

      11

  • #
    TdeF

    What we have here is the science of name calling. It is an art form mastered by the Marxist left of politics, expert in destroying people. Keith Windshuttle when he challenged the fact free aboriginal myths predicted he would be called an ‘ist. A devout Marxist, he had lost the faith when his best friend was murdered by communist mass murderer Pol Pot. However his Marxist training meant he would be branded by his former colleagues as a traitor to the cause.

    One day, there is was. Front page on the Melbourne Age. Keith was a plagiarist. It was all fabricated and the Age printed an obscure apology days later. The damage was done. Before this Prof Blainey was disgracefully driven from Melbourne University by similar attacks, front page on the Age and could no longer lecture. When he was finally driven out, one of the authors of the letter took his job. That is how the Left works.

    So in their handbook, you do not respond to the word denier. A scientist is a sceptic. Sceptical scientist is a tautology. Scientists do not deny facts but they often reject conclusions. Remember the Leftist Green Global Warming mob are science ignorant political types who do not actually care about global warming or the climate change or ocean acidification or polar bears. So they are invulnerable.

    However they do care about name calling and the best response is to call them warmists. This ridicules them and their position rather than defends the truth. It works. That is why they hate it.
    Warmists are the problem.

    81

  • #
    manalive

    Their scientific greats include guys like Bill Nye the Science Guy, James Randi, and Dick Smith …

    That can’t be the Dick Smith helicopter pilot extraordinaire who flew his helicopter around the world because it was there and he could.
    That can’t be the Dick Smith who has made five flights around the world for fun, who gets to places around Australia by flying there himself, owned his own JetRanger and “has hardly stopped flying ever since. So much so that earlier this year he clocked up 10,000 hours in fixed and rotary winged aircraft”.
    Hey Dick, if it is you and you’re there, I’ll happily join your anti-sceptic-sceptic crusade but first I, like I imagine six and a half billion other mere mortals, want to get rich enough to own my own aircraft fleet and enjoy a few global circumnavigating jaunts first — if that’s ok with you.

    81

  • #
    James Bradley

    The same people that brought us indiscriminate destruction of protected bird species without blinking, who described sceptics as deniers and believers as sceptics.

    The same people who demand billions be given to the UN to squander on conferences and who complain about millions spent on replenishing native forests.

    The same people that are so afraid of adaptation they trash the greatest acheivements of the industrial age – cheap, reliable energy.

    These people want to return humanity to the stone age.

    The stone age didn’t end because early man ran out of stones!

    The same people who want to live in the past desecrate history:-

    Peru will seek criminal charges against Greenpeace activists who it says damaged the world-renowned Nazca lines by leaving footprints in the adjacent desert during a publicity stunt.

    Associated Press Lima 10 Dec 2014:

    “It’s a true slap in the face at everything Peruvians consider sacred,” said Luis Jaime Castillo, the deputy culture minister, after the action by the environmental group on Monday, at the famed drawings etched into Peru’s coastal desert, a UN world heritage site.

    He said the government was seeking to prevent those responsible from leaving the country while it asks prosecutors to file charges of attacking archaeological monuments, a crime punishable by up to six years in prison.

    The activists entered a “strictly prohibited” area beside the figure of a hummingbird, the culture ministry said. They laid big yellow cloth letters reading: “Time for Change! The Future is Renewable.” The message was intended for delegates from 190 countries at the UN climate talks being held in Lima.”

    I guess I just reached my f*ckwit tolerence for the week…

    91

    • #
      Lawrie Ayres

      Oh James. You too? You would think Julie Bishop would have a quiet chat to Dr Denis Jensen who would tell her that the CO2 scare is over.

      81

  • #
    Lawrie Ayres

    Beautifully written as usual, Jo. When this climate fraud is finally exposed and accepted you should have a successful career as a writer of the history of the world’s greatest scam. Dick Smith might even write an apology for the end piece.

    I am amazed that usually logical people can be so gullible when it comes to climate fraud. Do they have investments at risk? We know the union run industry super funds do.

    51

  • #
    Robert

    I knew it was going to be something stupid as soon as I saw that Bill Nye’s name was involved.

    61

  • #
    George Applegate

    It is sad to see James Randi’s name on that list. Granted, he is a magician and not a scientist, but he was once a champion of the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” flavor of skepticism.

    41

  • #

    How often have I read things like:
    “There is no doubt that climate change is a real and present danger.”
    “97% of climate scientists agree..”
    “…with 95% confidence levels…”
    “The consensus …”

    Of what are “Climate Scientists” sceptical?

    51

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      They aren’t sceptical that we the common folk against them, are massively funded by big oil and that we do this as a day job.

      Of what are they sceptical? I’m at a loss, honestly.

      31

    • #

      Hi,I am a climate scientist.

      Nothing I have hind-casted or fore-casted in the last
      twenty-five years has come true but been falsified by
      the observed data.

      Everything I have hind-casted or fore-casted in the last
      twenty-five years has come from poor programs, post-hoc
      edits and sources of exaggerated validity.

      Nothing that I have published has been reviewed other
      than by my climate scientist pals none of whose own
      hind-casted and fore-casted studies, over the last
      twenty-five years, have like-wise come true but been
      falsified by the observed data.

      Everything I have published in the last twenty-five years
      has been financed by other people’s money and government
      grants and that money must-keep-coming. So trust me, all
      you serfs out there, for I am a climate scientist.

      101

  • #
    thingadonta

    “Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics.”

    Don’t they believe in protecting the innocent?

    “It is better to kill 100 innocent people than let the guilty man live” Vladimir Lenin.

    Fortunately, neither our legal system, nor our science system, works like this.

    31

  • #
    Slats

    I am not a skeptic. I am a sceptic.

    41

  • #
    Eddie

    In science it’s the same old conflict between cooperating individuals & a community of manipulation.
    The Libertarians & the all but Communists.
    Which is the true science could be anyone’s guess.

    31

  • #
  • #
    TedM

    Off topic Jo but great post at Climate Audit today.

    21

  • #
    chrism

    this is “crazymaking”

    that is a psychological term that describes a technique of a person doing something (usually offensive)

    and then that person labels the recipient as the do-er of the offensive thing

    eg one instance : The “97% crowd” say “you are a denier” – when in fact the 3% acknowledge (not deny) the physics of greenhouse

    and then the “97 %” deny access to data, deny real discussion, deny opportunity for rebuttal, …etc

    31

  • #
    Neville

    Steve McIntyre has a look at the growing discrepancy between models and reality. Surely a real growth industry, but will the much adjusted data catch up? Who knows?

    http://climateaudit.org/2014/12/11/unprecedented-model-discrepancy/

    31

    • #
      James Bradley

      Neville,

      Discrepancies in climate models:

      Lets start with the premise that there is a +or- 0.1C margin of error in temperature readings and Climate Scientists mathematically determine the temperature increase for 2014 is 0.01C +or- 0.1C.

      Therefore the Climate Science 100 year climate model prediction for 2114 would be 1.0C with +or- 10.0C margin of error…

      Just saying that’s all – seems they always round the readings up to the max margin of error.

      31

  • #
    handjive

    slightly O/T.

    Re: Abbott $200M Global Green Fund backflip -

    Tim Blair doesn’t hold back:

    Money allocated to fund an international climate fund could have been used to fund 40 million Australian GP visits, removed budget cuts for our 8000 poorest families or funded more than 40,000 skin cancer removals.

    That’s because it is a sign of weakness. It’s also a sign of idiocy. This wasted $200 million won’t win the government a single vote.”

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/cash_trashed/

    41

    • #
      James Bradley

      HJ,

      At first I thought it sounded a reasonable compromise, but the more I think about it the more I believe this is a weakness in the Coalition’s strategy – naivety – Our Prime Minister truly believes that he can win the hearts and minds of the Socialist/Green F*ckwit Brigade if he behaves humanely and acts reasonably and decently.

      For heaven’s sake these bed wetters viewed 1,200 people drowned under their refugee policy as collateral damage and the Government donation of $200 million to the green fund as a war crime.

      F*ckwit tolerance now spiralling into minus numbers.

      51

  • #
    gbees

    Big Pharma does the same thing to people who resist the cure-all pharmaceutical model. If you disagree, challenge their studies you are anti-science. It’s a classic leftist approach. We should use the same tactics back. I’m happy to drop to their level. It’s getting ridiculous and they have to be challenged and put back in their boxes.

    21

  • #
    Peter C

    But if you like namecalling, you can study it at the University of Queensland, and learn to be a certified tosser.

    I have enrolled in the course. I must remember to refer back to Jo’s post when completing the assignments. I have not received any materials yet.

    Depending on the quality of the course I may be able to submit an assessment to the University. I think that they request feedback about the courses these days.

    31

    • #
      Matty

      I do hope you enjoy it. I just can’t imagine it being worth the time though.
      It goes without saying ( so I’m not going to say it) that the discussion forums will be shamelessly manipulated

      31

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      You have an iron will Peter. There is no way I could sit through such a thing without exploding. (let alone pay for it).

      31

  • #
    Dennis

    A politician once told me that from his observations Australian Labor have three answers to all charges: deny, deny, deny. Is there a message in this?

    21

    • #
      James Bradley

      Dennis,

      Funnily enough that’s similar to the unofficial criminal code when hauled in for questioning:

      Admit nothing, deny everything…

      21

  • #
    Frank

    If the ‘ Skeptical scientists say “climate models are exaggerating” ‘ then ,by now, they would have been able provide the evidence and adjust the consensus , but they have’nt.
    The burden of proof is on the minority accuser . To use Sagan again, you’re the one claiming to have a dragon in your garage . Skepticism is healthy but if you’ve been arguing for years with no recognition then who is in denial ?

    115

    • #
      Lord Jim

      adjust the consensus

      Well, Frank, you still parrot an argument from authority, despite being repeatedly told that such arguments are fallacious.

      IOW: It does not follow from the mere fact that something is pointed out that a groupthink or political consensus will adjust to it: indeed sometimes just the opposite (circle the wagons) can eventuate.

      31

      • #
        Robert

        Why bother, he is incapable.

        41

      • #
        Frank

        Jim,
        If the majority view went your way you’d triumphantly call it a win for consensus , but because you’re out in the cold you can only attack the procedure that has rejected your ‘evidence’ and claim a conspiracy.
        Argument from authority is’nt necessarily false, you invoke it because you dont like what you hear, as a classic example of identity protective cognition you constantly cite others as authorities , you cant have it both ways.
        You have’nt addressed the main issue of burden of proof , just publish it please

        212

        • #
          Robert

          Burden of proof is on you, always has been. We know you can’t prove your claims which is why you continually try and turn it around to claims we need to prove anything.

          Since you are such an enthusiast of publications, how about you show us some. We never see any from you, just the same old tired word games.

          The majority view doesn’t mean a damn thing in science and never has. When observations don’t match the hypothesis, and that is all it is that you are supporting, then the hypothesis is wrong.

          You and those like you claim that CO2 is causing all of these things that observation does not support. So provide your proof that the observations are wrong. Bear in mind that models are not proof.

          The onus of proof is on you, always has been, no amount of trying to wiggle out of providing it will change that fact.

          52

          • #
            the Griss

            ALL the scientific proof backs up the “nearly all natural” null hypothesis.

            There IS NO PROOF AT ALL that human released CO2 is causing any warming of the atmosphere what-so-ever.

            Even Frank cannot provide such proof. !!!

            21

          • #
            Frank

            Robert,
            The dragon’s in your garage.
            If every scientific body in the world has’nt convinced you then obviously I cant, you’ve immunised yourselves. You’re in your bunker claiming a conspiracy and demanding evidence , if the hypothesis is wrong you can win by providing a scholarly response , none of you address that properly.

            110

            • #
              the Griss

              Another empty propaganda post from Frank the hollowman.

              The AGW hypothesis HAS been proven wrong.

              But its a now political issue.. so the scientific proof of its non-validity is ignored.

              Have any of those scientific bodies got back to you with some evidence yet..

              You would think they could find at least ONE paper that proves CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere.

              But so far.. NOTHING, !!!

              Come on Frank.. step up to the plate. and bring something of substance, instead of your hollow rhetoric.

              22

            • #
              Robert

              Oh good! We get the “every scientific body in the world” nonsense again.

              Oops, major screw up there partner, cause now I want a list of who they are because all we have to do is provide the name of one and you are screwed, exposed, and otherwise shown to be the exaggerating liar that you are.

              Go for it, give us a list of “every scientific body in the world”. This should be good humor.

              I knew we’d get more of the same drivel from you. You have no proof, you know you don’t, so you try and try to claim we have to prove something.

              We don’t, and you resorting to the “every blah blah blah” routine again just shows you haven’t a clue how it is done.

              51

            • #

              Oh Frank, seriously.

              We used to have someone come here to this site and Thread bomb it a few years back.

              One of his standard responses was that we lost the argument (on the comment in question) because of a spelling mistake, you know, the reply of last resort.

              But seriously Frank, read you comment:

              The dragon’s in your garage.
              If every scientific body in the world has’nt convinced you then obviously I cant, you’ve immunised yourselves. You’re in your bunker claiming a conspiracy and demanding evidence , if the hypothesis is wrong you can win by providing a scholarly response , none of you address that properly.

              There’s at least 5 incorrect uses of English in there, and if you count incorrect placement and use and misuse of commas, then it’s up to seven.

              If you have a Tertiary education, it seems your money may have been wasted.

              I bet you also support NAPLAN.

              Tony.

              62

              • #
                the Griss

                I’m trying to figure out where his education stopped.

                There is obviously no science/maths etc in his education, yet he also seems to have missed out on the English side of things.

                Some sort of non-study such as sociology, philosophy or something like that, maybe?

                21

        • #
          Lord Jim

          If the majority view went your way you’d triumphantly call it a win for consensus

          I see, you are a mind reader as well, are you.

          but because you’re out in the cold you can only attack the procedure that has rejected your ‘evidence’ and claim a conspiracy.

          In fact, YOU are the one claiming ‘conspiracy’. You only have two arguments: (false) ‘consensus!!!’ and ‘conspiracy!!!’: they go off like Pavlov’s dog.

          Argument from authority is’nt necessarily false, you invoke it because you dont like what you hear,

          More mind reading.

          And now attempting to parrot my own arguments arguments back at me.

          The argument from authority as you constantly invoke it is invalid (there can be no argument from authority in a field where the science is not settled; consensus here is not evidence, it is not even an argument).

          Even if it were not, it would still be defeasible.

          as a classic example of identity protective cognition you constantly cite others as authorities

          In fact, I very rarely cite authorities (and, I should note, only in an indicative manner, not as an authoritative conclusion to argument).

          But at least my authorities actually are authorities, not merely, a ‘consensus’ of unknown scientists.

          you cant have it both ways.

          Eh???

          1. Arguments from authority are not necessarily false.
          2. I invoke them as fallacious because I don;t like what I hear; but
          3. I use arguments from authority as ‘identity protective cognition’; and
          4. I can’t both (1) invoke arguments from authority as fallacious because I don;t like what I hear and (2) invoke arguments from authority as ‘identity protective cognition’.

          Bit hard to decipher, but in sum, I think we can say that Frank thinks that only ‘deniers’ have partisan interests and subject to the theory dependence of observation (i.e. bias, groupthink). CAGWers on the other hand are completely without bias or groupthink.

          This is a quaint view. Perhaps Frank has been reading too much Plato. However, since about the time Hume it has been generally recognized that the intellect is influenced by its passions.

          Oh, and even if it were true that I ‘do not like what I hear’ it would not invalidate my claim that the argument from authority is invalid where ‘the science is not settled’ is a factually true statement.

          You haven’t addressed the main issue of burden of proof , just publish it please

          And here is Frank trying to reverse the onus of proof.

          Those making a claim must provide the proof.

          You are making the claim that agw is dangerous: where is your proof?

          There is none. I reiterate: there can be no argument from authority in a field where the science is not settled; consensus here is not evidence, it is not even an argument.

          61

    • #
      James Bradley

      Frank,

      To clarify:

      1. “Skeptical scientists say” Is that the ‘old’ sceptical ‘denier’ scientists or the ‘new’ sceptical ‘believer’ scientists to which you refer?

      2. “climate models are exaggerating” So far all the CO2 based Climate Models have failed to predict the actual trend therebye proving that CO2 is not a factor.

      3. “by now, they would have been able provide the evidence and adjust the consensus , but they have’nt.” Evidence to adjust the consensus? Oh you mean the one where 59 papers vaguely referencing possible human involvement in climate change as opposed to the 11,944 other papers that did not, and then the 59 papers miraculously morphed into a 97% consensus of all the world’s scientists… that consensus?

      4. “The burden of proof is on the minority accuser” The ABC and 9msm have both very recently run polls showing the vast majority now do not believe in man induced climate change. That’s VAST MAJORITY like 98%. Screen shot of polls exist, Frank.

      5. “Skepticism is healthy but if you’ve been arguing for years with no recognition then who is in denial?” I got a clue for you Frank, and this is somewhat apropos in view of the *name you’ve chosen, if your sitting at a meeting table and can’t figure out who the bunny is going to be – then it’s probably you!

      Oh, and sceptic is spelt… well you get the idea.

      And **SKS is a fully automatic weapon favoured by all terrorst organisations.

      * Frank, oblique reference to Donie Darko…

      ** SKS, again, strangely apropos..

      41

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      You seem to be a little confused here, Frank.

      The sceptics don’t have to provide proof of anything. For one thing, it is a logical fallacy to demand that somebody prove a negative — can’t be done.

      The Climate Wonks predicted dramatic temperature increases, a catastrophic rising of the seas, a disappearance of the Arctic icecap, and other strange and wondrous outcomes, from the ongoing use of fossil fuels. The sceptics said, “Don’t believe you – show us your calculations, and your base observations, and give us access to your models, so we can corroborate what you say”. To which the Climate Wonks replied, using the sort of vulgar expletives, that are really not acceptable in polite society.

      So the sceptics just resorted to their fall-back position, and just waited to see what would happen, and whether the dramatic temperature increases and the rising of the seas, did actually occur, and whether the Arctic icecap did manage to disappear.

      The onus of proof falls on those making the prediction, and their predictions have yet to eventuate. That does not mean that they will not eventuate, at some time in the next millennium. It just means that they have not eventuated in the sort of timeframe that requires drastic increases in taxation, and bulk attendance of the Climate Wonks, and their groupies, at expensive conferences in exotic locations.

      Personally, I am convinced that they are right, and have only got the timeframe wrong. I am sure they will be vindicated, and proven correct, when the sun finally turns supernova.

      72

      • #
        Frank

        RW,
        Your ‘ cant prove a negative ‘ fallacy applies to topics that are ‘ unfalsifiable ‘ , theists use it as a challange to atheists.
        We are in the realm of science here , if its false science it can be shown to be so , you have to show why everyone else is wrong . Real sceptical scientists have access to the data and have not made a convincing case.

        29

        • #
          the Griss

          “We are in the realm of science here ,”

          NO.. you are not..

          There is NO convincing case for CAGW

          The case has NEVER been scientifically provided.

          ….its all failed hypothesis and failed models…. zero science.

          32

        • #
          Robert

          Twisting it around to suit you again I see. Nothing you have stated above is even remotely correct in the context of what we are discussing.

          Real sceptical scientists have access to the data and have not made a convincing case.

          Really, so that is why Mann is engaged in numerous lawsuits to prevent the disclosure of his data, that is why one of the climate gate emails show a scientist refusing to release his data because the person requesting it would “only try and find something wrong with it.”

          You really aren’t very good at this.

          41

        • #
          the Griss

          I notice you STILL avoid providing one single paper that proves that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere.

          Come on.. you have had time to contact the all the heads of the so-called “societies” to get some help.

          Still, nothing, nada, zip. !!

          32

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Frank,

          I will remind you of a little nursery rhyme, that may be suitable for your level of understanding of my comment to you:

          Yesterday upon the stair,
          I met a man who wasn’t there,
          He wasn’t there again today,
          I wish that man would go away.

          The man, in this case, is a metaphor for the increase in global temperatures, that have not occurred over the past decade or so.

          The point I was making, which probably sounded to you as a whooshing noise over your head, was that we do not need to falsify anything. Your hypothesis is doing the job very nicely without our assistance.

          21

    • #
      Matty

      “Adjust the consensus ! “

      wfh.

      The consensus isn’t adjustable. It’s entirely made up. A prefabricated construction to wheel out in a storm.

      How many climate models does it take ?

      The idea that averaging rubbish gives you any better rubbish is , just rubbish

      31

    • #
      me@home

      What on earth does this garbage mean?

      01

    • #
      Heywood

      “The burden of proof is on the minority accuser ”

      Incorrect.

      The burden of proof lies on whomever makes the claim. For example if I was to claim that Global Warming was actually caused by an alien death ray fired from Mars, it would be up to me to provide evidence of this, regardless of the number of people who agree or disagree. It needs to be observable evidence, testable via repeatable experiment. Not a guess based on a computer model.

      What you propose is merely Argumentum Ad Populum.

      30

  • #
    pat

    prominent member of Australian Skeptics, Phillip Adams, does his final show for the year. paraphrasing from about two thirds into the program:

    ROD QUANTOCK: (twice) there’s nothing else worth talking about except CLIMATE CHANGE.
    Quantock brings up the scariest ever 2012 CSIRO report predicting, by 1970, if we do nothing about dealing with CC, there won’t be one square metre of australia that resembles what it does today. they said it would look different, it would sound different and it would smell different. when u r faced with that, a world that will possibly be 4 or 5 degrees warmer by mid century, clearly a process that’s going on here (sic), we are going to hit the most extraordinary traumas, social divisions, geopolitical instability around the world, food crises, nobody talks about peak oil…

    PHILLIP ADAMS: you’re into peaks, aren’t you…you also talk peak population, which makes you rather eccentric. (ADAMS HAS NEVER NOTICED THE CONNECTION???)

    ROD QUANTOCK: there’s a few people who talk about it, but there aren’t many. growth is now an absolute nonsense. abbott says coal is good for humanity. it is criminally insane to say that. i cannot believe someone who got to the highest point in the land could be so absolutely ignorant. we’ve made CC into an argument between left and right but, in this case, the right is wrong & the left is right. to get that message out is absolutely vital and almost impossible.

    LAURA TINGLE: heartened by the China/US deal. chinese can’t breathe. response to the deal has been so strong, polls by CSIRO & other political polls show most people do believe CC is happening & they want action, so humanity may triumph.

    PHILLIP ADAMS: claims he started grumbling about CLIMATE CHANGE in the 80s & he was convinced it would unify the entire world, overcome political divisions & we’d have a challenge to unite us, but it didn’t bloody well happen, so he hopes Laura is right.

    AUDIO: 11 Dec: ABC Late Night Live: Phillip Adams: Year wrap on the political, economic and cultural landscape
    Guests include:
    Rod Quantock, Comedian, activist and climate change researcher and Associate of the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute at the University of Melbourne
    Laura Tingle, Political Editor of the Australian Financial Review
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/year-wrap-on-political2c-economical-and-cultural-landscape/5955246

    andd that, ladies & gentlemen, is the state of intellectual discussion in australia today.

    41

    • #
      me@home

      Forget “Rod Quantock, Comedian, activist and climate change researcher and Associate of the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute at the University of Melbourne”. Think Rod Q nutcase.

      01

  • #
    pat

    as for the writer of the “48 SCIENCE MINDS”(whaever does that mean?) article in The Australian, John Conroy:

    Articles by John Conroy in News Ltd’s Business Spectator – 25 pages of results – almost all CAGW-related and from a pro-CAGW perspective.
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/contributor/john-conroy

    11

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    “leading scientists”

    That term reminds me of ads I used to see for Preparation H. It was recommended by leading proctologists everywhere.

    I wonder if they’re the same bunch recycled for a new job as the leading profession du jour.

    What does “leading scientists” mean?

    21

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And such a powerful showing too — a whole 48 of them. I’m so impressed!

      I wonder how long it would take them to find as many unskeptical skeptical scientists as the Petition Project has real skeptical scientists.

      21

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Nobody ever tells you what the trailing scientists think.

      31

    • #
      James Bradley

      Roy,

      Okay so we’re now down to 48 leading scientists – well that’s still a 79% consensus of the world’s scientisits…

      41

  • #
    Matty

    Oh look. The Tooth Fairy has been busy. Given everyone a Thumbs Down . Everyone but one of Frank’s that is.

    31

    • #
      Richo

      Probably some obsessive warmist nut who needs to get a life.

      11

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Matty,

      I think it’s one of those 48 “leading scientists” trying to act like a leader. The tooth fairy would leave a quarter. Or maybe it’s a dollar now with inflation factored in.

      11

  • #
    James Bradley

    Oh, look, Frank has changed e-mail address and has given himself a Green Thumb…

    31

    • #
      Frank

      JB,
      Did not, thumbs are for kids
      btw, what sort of red herring is **SKS ?

      04

      • #
        James Bradley

        Frank,

        Now y’see, I like to use natural arguments with a good strong primary statement and a light twist to it, all delicate like, it attracts ‘em every time, then just gain their attention, something simple usually does it, then I cast it out using an irresistable hook, and you know it’s a lure they just can’t resist, and… well, well what do you know… come in spinner.

        And that’s how you go trolling, folks!

        41

        • #
          James Bradley

          And before you complain about my being off topic, Frank, just remember you mentioned fishing first, not me…

          “btw, what sort of red herring is **SKS ?”

          And in answer to that – exactly!

          61

      • #
        Matty

        That’s a denial.
        It’s OK Frank, no need to admit it . We understand .

        11

    • #
      Robert

      Change of IP address not email.

      11

  • #
    pat

    11 Dec: UK Daily Mail: Ben Spencer: Billions in UK green aid goes to booming nations: World’s poorest countries ‘left behind’ as at least £1.6bn from Britain goes to economies including India and Brazil
    Poorest countries are being ‘left behind’ as richer nations scoop up cash
    Money has helped to fund wind farms, solar panels and flood defences
    Research found 10 most vulnerable nations only received 7% of climate aid
    Critics say it’s ‘bonkers’ to give cash to major economies for projects
    But supporters insist UK must fund green projects abroad because the world’s poorest nations are set to be hit the hardest by global warming
    The world’s poorest countries are being ‘left behind’ as richer nations scoop up most of the cash, according to the Overseas Development Institute.
    The British think tank calculated that booming economies have received the lion’s share of climate finance from Western nations – including at least £1.6billion from the UK – over the past decade…
    Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary, insists that the UK must fund green projects abroad because the world’s poorest nations are set to be hit the hardest by global warming…
    ***The report analysed a decade of LOANS and grants going into international funds set up to tackle climate change.
    Of the £4.8 billion that the ODI looked at, the UK was the biggest contributor, putting in £1.6billion…
    Smita Nakhooda, lead author of the report, called for money to be directed to the areas where it is most needed.
    ‘The lives of millions of people in poor countries affected by climate change depend on getting this right,’ she said…
    However, even one of the world’s poorest countries admitted that the UN is asking too much of western nations by insisting on huge financial contributions for green projects.
    Bangladesh’s environment minister Anwar Hossain Manju told reporters in Lima: ‘We are probably expecting too much from the industrialised and developed countries, because today all countries are suffering from social, political, economic problems.’…
    The UK is committed to spending £3.9billion for green projects abroad between 2011 and 2016.
    That sum is likely to rise in the coming years…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2869357/Billions-UK-green-aid-goes-booming-nations.html

    21

  • #
    pat

    ***heading for “a world of hurt”!

    US Senate: Senator (Barbara) Boxer’s Message to the UN Climate Change Conference
    Thursday, December 11, 2014
    Hello, I am U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
    In the United States, we are continuing to witness the devastating impacts of climate change — from the hottest summer on record, to historic droughts and extreme wildfires in California, to vanishing wildlife in Alaska, to toxic algae blooming out of control and contaminating drinking water in America’s heartland.
    The scientific evidence continues to mount. New research by the University of California-Irvine and NASA showed that the rate of ice loss from West Antarctica has tripled in the past decade. Warmer ocean waters are eating away at Antarctic glaciers, and scientists tell us that if this trend continues, it could lead to sea levels rising by 11 feet around the world.
    The impacts of climate change are truly devastating. Since 1992, there have been more than 6,600 major disasters related to climate, weather and water worldwide, and these disasters have caused more than $1.6 trillion in damages and killed more than 600,000 people. That’s from the Associated Press…
    Policymakers around the globe cannot just try to adapt to climate change. Instead, every country must act now to reduce dangerous carbon pollution or it will it lead to irreversible impacts for human health, food and water supplies, and ***a world of hurt…
    In America, poll after poll shows that people want us to address the threat posed by climate change. A few months ago, 400,000 people participated in a climate march in New York City to demonstrate their support for action…
    http://www.boxer.senate.gov/en/press/updates/12112014c.cfm

    02

  • #
    pat

    reality hurts!

    11 Dec: Guardian: Suzanne Goldenberg: Lima climate talks agree on just one paragraph of deal with 24 hours left
    As crucial UN climate summit in Peru enters final hours, negotiators have made little progress on draft text
    But while negotiators descended on Lima in a positive mood, buoyed by recent commitments from the US and China, the talks have fallen into a rut.
    “We are going backwards,” said Alden Meyer, who monitors the climate negotiations for the Union of Concerned Scientists…
    By Thursday morning the text, which had started at a reasonable 6 pages, had ballooned to about 50, with negotiators throwing in their objections to almost every single clause. Just one section, paragraph 34, on countries intensifying engagement in the years up to 2020, has been agreed by negotiators…
    “You have got this weird dynamic where China has stood up with their president and president Obama and committed to putting forward economy wide commitments but their formal negotiating position is that those kinds of commitments shouldn’t happen,” Meyer said…
    However, negotiators always in the end manage to produce some kind of a deal.
    The risk for Lima however is that the deal could be much weaker than needed to curb warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels, the agreed goal of the talks…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/11/lima-climate-talks-fail-agreement-single-paragraph-deal

    21

  • #
    pat

    NYT still in total denial!

    11 Dec: NYT: Coral Davenport: Strange Climate Event: Warmth Toward U.S. for Its More Assertive Role
    When it comes to global warming, the United States has long been viewed as one of the world’s worst actors. American officials have been booed and hissed during international climate talks, bestowed with mock “Fossil of the Day” awards for resisting treaties, and widely condemned for demanding that other nations cut their fossil fuel emissions while refusing, year after year, to take action at home.
    Suddenly, all that has changed…
    It is an incongruous moment, arriving at a time when so many aspects of American foreign policy are under fire.
    But the enthusiastic reception on climate issues comes a month after a historic announcement by the United States and China, the world’s two largest polluters, that they would jointly commit to cut their emissions. Many international negotiators say the deal is the catalyst that could lead to a new global climate change accord that would, for the first time, commit every nation in the world to cutting its own planet-warming emissions…
    “The U.S. is now credible on climate change,” said Laurence Tubiana, the French climate change ambassador to the United Nations, who is leading efforts to broker a new agreement to be signed by world leaders in Paris next year.
    Veterans of two decades of climate change negotiations called the turnaround in America’s image profound.
    “Countries got weary of negotiations with the U.S.; it got tough in negotiations, but it didn’t deliver,” said Yvo de Boer, the former executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change…
    “This is the first time in the history of the climate talks that the U.S. Secretary of State has engaged directly in the climate talks,” said Mr. de Boer, now director of the Global Green Growth Institute. “That direct engagement gives a lot of credibility to the U.S. position.”…
    “I’m proud that the U.S. has accepted responsibility,” he (John Kerry) said. “We’re going straight to the largest source of emissions.”
    He even cited the most contentious impact of the Obama administration’s new rules — they are expected to shutter hundreds of coal-fired power plants.
    “We’re going to take a bunch of them out of commission,” he said…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/world/strange-climate-event-warmth-toward-the-us.html?_r=0

    11

  • #
    pat

    11 Dec: Climate Depot: Marc Morano: Skeptics Cleared Off Stage: Apollo 7 Astronaut Rushed Off Stage At UN Climate Summit To Make Way For Kerry Photo Op
    Skeptics’ presentation at UN Abruptly Cut Short
    Former NASA astronaut Walt Cunningham Had Just Finished Slamming the UN climate Summit for perpetrating the ‘one of the biggest frauds in the field of science’
    Climate Depot’s Marc Morano ripped the UN: ‘The UN climate process will do nothing for climate change and it is completely designed to enrich the UN.’
    LIMA, Peru – During a press conference today by the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Peru, climate change skeptic NASA Apollo astronaut and American hero Col. Walt Cunningham, along with CFACT Executive Director Craig Rucker and Director of Communications Marc Morano, were abruptly removed off the stage by UN officials to create a platform for a photo op for the newly arrived Secretary of State John Kerry.
    Video of Skeptics’’ presentation at UN here.
    Despite being given a slot of 30 minutes for their talk, they were told they had to “wrap up” after 18 minutes into their presentation to make room for Secretary Kerry who is attending the UN talks to promote a new UN climate treaty…
    Kerry was scheduled to do a talk in a different room, but needed the press room for Kerry’s photo op. Six minutes later, CFACT politely left as requested and then the room remained empty for at least another 35 minutes. Col Cunningham’s skeptical talk was interrupted without just cause…
    “This is an outrage. We are one of the few skeptical voices of reason here at the conference. To interrupt our press conference and abruptly end our press conference smacks of a cheap form of censorship,” said Craig Rucker of CFACT. “This was particularly obnoxious as the room remained vacant for quite a while after we left.”…
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/12/11/skeptics-cleared-off-stage-apollo-7-astronaut-rushed-off-stage-at-un-climate-summit-to-make-way-for-kerry-photo-op/

    21

  • #
    markx

    As the saying goes: These are people who apparently see Orwell’s “1984″ as an instruction book rather than a warning.

    This co-opting and redefining of words seems particularly Orwellian.

    41

    • #
      C.J.Richards

      ” Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. “

      Orwell, in 1946, ‘Politics and the English Language’,

      ” “Politics and the English Language” (1946) is an essay by George Orwell that criticises the “ugly and inaccurate” written English of his time and examines the connection between political orthodoxies and the debasement of language. The essay focuses on political language, which, according to Orwell, “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Orwell believed that the language used was necessarily vague or meaningless because it was intended to hide the truth rather than express it. “

      41

  • #
    Peter Yates

    “Whats the opposite of skeptical?”
    …. Gullible.

    Also :-
    ~ credulous;
    ~ trustful, trusting.
    http://www.synonym.com/antonyms/skeptical/

    31

  • #
    pat

    ***”climate change” is “mainly” man-made, didn’t u know! plus US not quite the darling of Lima as NYT/Davenport claims:

    11 Dec: Reuters: Kerry tells rich and poor to make climate deal to avoid ‘tragedy’
    By Patricia Zengerle and Mitra Taj
    (Writing by Alister Doyle; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and David Gregorio)
    He also took aim at domestic U.S. critics of President Barack Obama who question whether climate change is ***mainly man-made. Kerry said scientific findings were overwhelming and “screaming at us, warning us”…
    Even after two decades of talks about global warming, “We are still on a course leading to tragedy,” he told delegates including U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres and Peru’s Environment Minister Manuel Pulgar-Vidal.
    Many poor nations and environmental groups say Washington has done too little, despite pledges of tougher action in a deal with China last month. Critics note that in 2012, U.S. emissions were 4.3 percent above levels in 1990, the U.N. benchmark year for cuts.
    “The world is tired of hearing rhetorical, empty boasting about U.S. leadership while the glaciers melt, fires rage and people lose their lives to climate change,” said Karen Orenstein of Friends of the Earth…
    Kerry said a shift to renewable energy sources would still result in improved health and energy security around the world, even if scientific findings that greenhouse gases cause climate change were wrong and skeptics were right.
    “But what happens if the climate skeptics are wrong? Catastrophe,” he said…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/11/us-climatechange-lima-idUSKBN0JP2GN20141211

    BBC’s McGrath, tho, would seem to be hanging out with NYT’s Davenport in Lima!

    ***check out Stern’s pic for that “ray of sunshine” look!

    11 Dec: BBC: Matt McGrath: Will Kerry strike gold at Lima climate talks?
    For once, the US is not being seen as the Great Satan of CO2.
    Thanks to their joint initiative with China, the two countries are taking a bow as leaders of the fight against rising temperatures.
    ***The change in atmosphere could be seen on the poker face of US special climate envoy Todd Stern, who in recent days has been a veritable ray of sunshine…
    One of the ideas that’s getting a lot of attention from environmental activists is the aim to have zero emissions by 2050.
    This item is still alive in the draft text and has support from a large number of developing countries. Green groups believe that the politicians are heeding the message from the streets.
    “The public call for 100% clean energy has gone mainstream, and finally leaders are starting to respond with ambitious targets,” said Iain Keith from Avaaz.
    But the idea is not popular with the boys from the black stuff, the countries who make their living from oil and coal.
    “The zero-emissions concept – or let’s knock fossils fuels out of the picture without clear technology diffusion and solid international cooperation programmes – does not help the process,” said Saudi Arabia’s chief negotiator in Lima, Khalid Abuleif.
    “I do not think this is realistic when two billion people do not have access to energy,” he added, a tad sniffily…
    The Indians are said to be feeling a bit bruised after their great ally, China, seems to have sided with the US.
    Perhaps they are waiting for the kind of in-depth love and attention the US lavished on China to get them to move forward?
    Don’t hold your breath says Mr Stern…
    Another challenge for Mr Kerry will be the need to try and usher some recalcitrant countries to join the party – especially Australia.
    The Lucky Country has been vilified here for its stance on climate change…
    Bill Hare, Climate Analytics think-tank: “Many in the government are denying the yeti-scale footprint of climate change impacts being felt by people from one end of the country to the other.”…
    According to foreign minister Julie Bishop, it was part of Australia’s “commitment to play our part in the global response to climate change”.
    But money doesn’t seem to buy friends here in Lima. Green groups have given the country their mocking “fossil of the day” award several times during this conference of the parties.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30426458

    a very odd piece from BBC, i thought.

    21

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Must be the first time that the Greens didn’t want to take the money. Oh wait, they did take it, but they want more.

    41

  • #
    Richo

    Notice that most of the climsyndicate of 48 sponge off the taxpayers purse in their ivory towers and haven’t earned an honest dollar in their life. Zero life experience in the real world.

    21

  • #
    sophocles

    The IPCC says : ” The cause of this bias remains elusive.”

    Sure it does. I tried the exercise outlined below and it eluded almost everyone.

    Many people have no sense of proportion. An order of magnitude is meaningless to them. If just one order of magnitude is meaningless, then six is, well, incomprehensible. So I tried this exercise to make the proportions obvious. Unfortunately, my point was elusive.

    I did this recently, stepping a dozen adults who considered themselves well educated through it. To the best of my knowledge, they were all sober.

    I asked them to consider one unit of atmosphere at nearly sea level in the tropics.
    Ok, Cancer and Capricorn have just shot that one down. Only a few of them knew the equator was at 0 degrees latitude and Cancer was 23.5 degrees north, with Capricorn at 23.5 degrees south. But you all know that. I didn’t even get to define “one unit of atmosphere.” Yet.

    I resorted to a sharp pencil, a large piece of paper and a ruler each. Ok, they all got that. I asked them to draw a grid 102 columns wide and 102 rows high. They could choose their units themselves so it fitted on one sheet of paper. I expected a grid with lines 2mm apart horizontally and vertically on the A4 paper.

    Nope. After distributing fresh paper, I suggested 2mm x 2mm for the row and column spacing on a single sheet.
    About a third of them eschewed such a primitive exercise and tried it on their laptop/tablet/smartphone using either a spreadsheet or a graphix program.

    It took ages for these … competent and educated … adults to create their grids. I wish I had timed it.
    A few pencils had to be resharpened (and fresh paper handed over)

    I handed out aqua and red coloured pencils, having a handful of each with me.

    All of you will have worked out by now, the grid will contain 10,404 cells.

    I told them to select 400 cells at random and colour them aqua. They could choose 20 rows at `random,’ as long as they were separated from each other by at least one other empty row and 20 columns at random also separated by at least one empty column from each other. In other words, scatter these around the grid. The technology enabled started to bomb right about now.

    They were then to take the red pencil and select three well separated cells and colour them red.

    When that was done, a long time later, I told them they were looking at `one unit of atmosphere as it was in 1850.” All the empty cells represented the three main atmospheric gases which make up over 99% of the atmosphere: nitrogen is about 78.08%, oxygen about 20.95% and argon 0.93% ( Sum = 99.96%), the aqua cells represented the water vapour in the air between the tropics and the three red cells was the CO2. Water vapour in the tropics is about 4%.

    Those last two bits created a real ruckus. The CO2 was `way too small,’ and you can’t have 104%. I sent the portables (only 1 letter more than potables) to Wikipedia, Atmosphere_of_Earth, or ‘atmospheric composition’ if they went via google. I told them they could erase 0.2 parts of one of the red cells to get the CO2 accurate for 1850 at 284ppm. At that scale, the CO2 was rounded up to 300ppm. I stepped them through the calculations. After some grumbling, it was sort of accepted. But not believed.

    Finally one person asked what the CO2 concentration at 398ppm would look like now. I asked if they would accept it rounded up to 400 ppm? Yeah, OK, but it’s not accurate. Sure, just run the numbers. That individual arrived at just one more cell, a 4th, to be coloured red. I began to think there was hope for humanity.

    Despite that demonstration, I wasn’t believed. At all. Could that addition of just one CO2 molecule per unit of the atmosphere cause the last century’s warming? Or was it magic?

    I shouldn’t have bothered. 4 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 of N2 + O2 + Ar is all it is. I’m now officially, according to them, a denier. What’s worse, a denier Trying To Trick them. Sigh. No sense of proportion.

    As an exercise, I left it to them to rework the percentages of the major gases to include the water vapour. They couldn’t. It was beyond them even with calculators. You guys in gals should be able to:
    10,000 cells representing N2 at 78.08%, O2 at 20.95% and Ar at 0.93% plus 400 cells representing HOH and CO2 at 400ppm or 4 cells. Piece of cake. 100%= 10,404. Go to it, it’ll take you less than a minute.
    It won’t be exact, it’s not meant to be, it’s meant to show the relative proportions. About.
    If they did’t like the water vapour, they could leave it out and make a grid 100 x 100 cells. It will have, proportionally, too much CO2 but still not much, and pretend they’re in Antarctica with zero relative humidity, or the North Pole.

    That exercise should have brought home the proportions.

    But it missed. By the proverbial country mile.

    So, in an unexpected way, the IPCC is not so wrong when it says the “cause is elusive.”

    It’s easier to believe the scare stories. After all, they’re scary. Must be right.

    21

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Innumeracy, which is what you’re talking about, is the usual state of most human beings as far as I can see. But it’s worse than that. People don’t even know what questions they need answered so the numbers they’re fed will actually mean something. Right now an ad is all over TV in the U.S. It asks the question, “If every driver kept his tires properly inflated how many gallons of gas would be saved every year?” The correct answer (can’t be anything but a wild guess) is 4 billion gallons.

      4 billion sure sounds like a lot of gas and a really worthwhile savings, right? But is it? What they don’t tell you is how much gas is used every year in the U.S. The figure is so mind boggling compared to 4 billion gallons that I laughed when I first saw that commercial. The proportions are not exactly on a par with the concentration of CO2 compared with the total atmosphere. But the saving of 4 billion gallons fades into insignificance when you know the full picture, about 134,506,764,000 gallons used in 2013. So we’re worrying about less than 3% (2.97). I can change my driving habits so as to change my gas mileage by more than 3% just by how fast and hard I put my foot down on the gas pedal. And it’s even easier to get better milage by staying within the speed limit on the freeways.

      Now I’m not advocating the waste of 4 billion gallons of gas. There’s nothing wrong with avoiding the waste. And maybe at nearly $4/gallon that saving means something to some people. But it’s not going to materially change our fuel picture in this country. And improperly inflated tires can be dangerous. So I think I’ll keep my tire pressure in the right range for the safety reason, not to save 0.4 gallons in every fillup of about 12.

      12

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    And speaking about climate change…

    After several days of light rain we’re having a heavy driving rain that’s already been going on for hours. The street in front of my house is running water from curb to curb as I type this and there are flood warnings in numerous places. It shows no sign of letting up any time soon.

    So much for Trenberth and his hotter air from global warming causing the California drought. As usual the weather is it’s own master.

    Our problem is not over with one storm of course. But this is a welcome change in direction that starts early in the winter to dump the snow in the Sierra Nevada Mountains that we depend on for water throughout the state. If it continues anything like this it’s really very good news.

    Our other major source of water is the Colorado River and if there’s heavier snow in the Rocky Mountains we’ll be even better off.

    So let them play their childish games about who is and is not a skeptic or a denier. Reality is what counts.

    21

  • #
    unmentionable

    Never forget this little poison pill of Double-think, Double-Speak and Anti-Science promoted by people who claim to know better, or at least should know better:

    Bizarre: Anti-Defamation League apparently gives a green light to defamation of climate skeptics by comparing them to Holocaust Deniers

    01

  • #
    Andrew

    Hang on, why deny the Science any more?

    The IPCC has become lukewarmers. On the order of 1C / 100y, no sign of more hurricanes. No sign of drought effects – perhaps a touch MORE rain.

    There’s now so little between the IPCC and real scientists (other than the size of error bars) I’m happy to stipulate to ECS 1.5C with no ill effects until 2090.

    I’ll just deny the Economics.

    What will the swampies respond? Economists are demonstrably incompetent and disreputable – no Treasury has ever forecast their own recession.

    What if the Economists are wrong, and the windmills completely ineffective at abatement (a great big con by Big Wind). As proof, we spend $1bn a DAY on CO2 stuff. Can anybody see falling emissions resulting?

    What if the windmills turn out useless? Every 3 years, we would lose the value of ALL the subprime mortgages ever blown up!

    11

  • #
    Phil Ford

    “…So who is making the extraordinary claim: Skeptical scientists say “climate models are exaggerating”. Unskeptical scientists say that building windmills in Hokum Downs will prevent floods in Taiwan. Where is the evidence?”

    Fantastic writing, Jo. Couldn’t have put it any better myself.

    11

  • #

    It’s not just holocaust deniers. People who want to launch an academic journal to study the effects of pornography are “akin to climate change deniers”, says Gail Dines, a sociology professor in London – http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/jun/16/internet-violent-porn-crime-studies

    Perhaps there could be one place on the web where all kinds of deniers – holocaust, porn, climate, etc. – could come together.

    02

  • #
    YetAnotherSceptic

    That the missing heat is conclusively found in the oceans. The best data we have is the ARGO network — where each thermometer measures nearly a quarter of a million cubic kilometers of water. No scientist would ever accept that measurement as valid to one hundredth of a degree even for a swimming pool. Kidding, right?

    I’ve always wondered about that – my understanding of the GW theory is that increased CO2 is supposed to make the air warmer. AFAIK, IR radiation from CO2 cannot heat water – well except for the top few microns, which would lead to evaporation (hence some cooling due to loss of latent heat).

    11

  • #

    When entangled in an argument with the irrational, remain calm and rational.

    If only to annoy the irrational. ;-)

    41

  • #

    OK – well here’s my reply, Jo – http://rodmclaughlin.com/a-comment-censored-on-joannenova-com-au

    As you can see, I still love you ;)

    10

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    I thought this was the one issue Jo agreed with Michael Mann about.
    Mann says Deniers aren’t skeptics.
    Jo says Skeptics aren’t deniers.
    Well that’s two ways of saying basically the same thing.

    A big problem in this debate has always been people calling themselves skeptical without actually being open to a shift in opinion. That goes for both sides.
    It’s possible to find facts that the “Deniers” have actually denied at some stage.
    It’s also possible to find facts that warmists have denied, though they are extremely good at just avoiding the inconvenient facts entirely.

    This fight over who can rightfully be called a “skeptic” may bear fruit. It’s going to become more obvious whose opinion can be changed by evidence versus who is just mouthing the words of science as an excuse to believe whatever they prefer.
    Probably the true skeptics won’t get any credibility until they “clean house” and turf out the deniers.
    Again, that applies to both sides.
    When will the various academies of science announce the hockeystick was broken and all reason for believing that modern warming is unprecedented vanished with it?
    When will the various climate skeptic blogs denounce the claims there’s no radiative greenhouse effect, no backradiation, and the rise in CO2 is not coming from human activity, claims which are all counterfactual?

    The problem is politicians respond to confidence and wannabe-scientists of all stripes are exhibiting undeserved confidence in pronouncements about the climate.

    I close with the words of SkS, who ought to apply their own advice:

    I’m not saying the Dunning-Kruger effect is limited to one side of the debate. It’s a universal human condition not confined to a particular ideology. When I first got into climate science discussions, I made my fair share of over-confident yet naive statements. As my understanding grew, I came to realise the complexities of climate science and how much more I have to learn (as predicted by Dunning and Kruger). I’m also not saying all skeptic arguments are a result of the Dunning-Kruger effect. – John Cook, 15 February 2010

    Science is iterative, not dictative or supernaturally revelatory. There’s no single, infallible decree. Science is the process by which we strive to best approximate reality. The first results are not necessarily the “best” results, and they certainly are not written in stone. Our monitoring systems, particularly (ironically?) the ones with multidecadal records, were not designed for the kind of questions we may be trying to investigate with them. – Pseudonymous blogger thingsbreak, 15 Feb 2011.

    00

    • #

      Andrew, I take issue: It’s possible to find facts that the “Deniers” have actually denied at some stage.

      There is no group to label the “deniers”. There’s a spectrum of people who don’t exist as a single minded collection. We skeptical people disagree with each other about many things. The believers who push an agenda (and want our money) choose to highlight the weakest arguments made by a few in order to write off the opinions of the many.

      Skeptics can’t turf out “deniers” from a clubhouse that doesn’t exist. Instead we target weak arguments and state our disagreement both publicly and in private. This is already happening. It’s not about turfing people anyway, it’s about tossing bad ideas out.

      As for “credibility” for being open minded. I believed for 17 years. I switched. Didn’t earn me any points with believers at all. ;-)

      20

  • #
    Matty

    Inherent in the use of “denier” is its resonating with liar and that’s what users of it are saying. They’re calling you a liar, even if it’s supposed to mean lying to yourself, but the premise is that they are right and you are wrong and won’t admit it.

    00